A proposal: the Objectivist Audio Review magazine

[austinpop]

I agree that the labels of "subjective" and "objective" are meaningless, and end up being used here as weapons rather than meaningful labels.

 

Can we step away from our corners and look at this from a different angle? Ponder this: why are we all here - on a site called Computer Audiophile? Aren't we here because we love the experience of listening to music on computer-based audio systems?

 

If we can agree to that, then the next question is: what are our objectives when we participate on this site?

1. To learn how to "improve" our audio systems from the collective knowledge of the community?
2. To contribute our knowledge to help others in the community?
3. To debate and argue about topics related to computer audio?
4. To mock and bait the "other side?" I admit - this is a fun pursuit!

As an empiricist - I like @lmitche's description - I'd like to understand the objective approach to 1 and 2. Let's focus on 1. Say you have a system comprised of an end to end collection of gear. You are interested in upgrading your digital component A, and based on your interactions and learnings here, you have settled on B. How does this work in the objective world?

1. Do you only consider replacement candidates for A that measure "better" than it? 
2. Assuming candidate B measures better, do you still listen to it - gasp, subjectively! - before you buy it?
3. Or are measurements good enough for you?

The reason I ask these questions is that I see a lot of hostility and ridicule for subjective methods here on CA, but are there threads here that show people going from A to B using purely objective criteria? If so, any examples?

 

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

i take almost everything they say as gospel! 

 

Struggling to understand how this is objective?

[austinpop]

I think the two "sides" actually agree more than we realize, on the need for rigor and robust experimental design. I give a lot more credence to a claimant who has posted a listening impression on "a change," when they have demonstrated that they constructed their listening experiment with care.

• have they described their system in sufficient detail?
• Are they using the proper controls? Are they only varying exactly one thing - the item under test?
• have they controlled for level differences?
• Are they doing sighted or blind listening? This is a a fraught topic in itself, but just speaking for myself, I don't dismiss either, as long as they demonstrate rigor.

Here is where the differences come in. To some, measurements are necessary, in 2 places:

1. preceding the experiment. You only conduct the listening experiment on a "change," if it is something that has been found to measure better, not because some dude said so.
2. during the experiment.
   • for some, you measure the impact with instrumentation, rather than listen with your ears
   • for others, you measure the impact with instrumentation, AND you listen with your ears.

Fair enough. Whether you need the measurements or not, it's ultimately about trust, isn't it? Because in the end, all that matters is:

1. the end result to your, the reader's, ears. Whatever the claimed finding, and whether based on measurements, listening, or both, were you able to reproduce it in your system, as heard by you? Yes, heard, not measured. End users don't - overwhelmingly - measure outcomes with instruments, they either hear, or don't hear, them.
2. If you hear the same effect as the claimant that reported the experiment, and this has happened enough times, to enough people, you eventually start to treat the claimant as a trusted source.

Just as I have come to trust @lmitche's findings. Just as @beerandmusic trusts his peeps.

 

We're not so different. Kumbaya, anyone?

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, lmitche said:

...  if you're listening, I hope you're able to find ...

 

Larry, you cracked me up with that! Nicely done, sir.

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

Hang on Jabbr it's not just Jud and me:

 

@austinpop, @forehaven, @zorntel if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the words to describe the SQ change associated with your Lush cable treated with JSSG 360.

 

Hi Larry, I've already done that over in the "echo chamber." so I won't repeat it here, because it appears irrelevant.

 

Some of us can consider a purely empirical finding like yours (JSSG 360), decide - what the heck, let's try it, and within hours be enjoying better SQ in our systems. Our view is if it sounds better, who cares if it's explainable or measurable. And even if it's just a delusion - like @Jud's eggs analogy - I don't care, because it sounds better to my brain, and it gives me pleasure. 

 

And with the state of the world these days, I'll take that any day.

[austinpop]

9 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Well it’s not as if John didn’t go to some lengths to explain the theory and operating principles behind looped shielding technique and why it very effectively blocks entry of low frequency AC leakage that is present around everyone’s cable nests. 

It is funny how the explanations behind many of the effective techniques—in products and tweaks—that @JohnSwensonhas written about get ignored or forgotten, by both critics and adherents.    

 

Apologies, Alex, surely you know that was not my intent, nor my point? I was referring to Larry's specific mod to make the return path another conductive cylinder (braid) rather than a single wire. I did not mean to minimize John's contributions.

 

Anyway, enough said, this whole cable thing is indeed OT for this thread.

[austinpop]

What would the article be about? Since all cables obviously sound the same? #OhmsLaw

[austinpop]

17 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I would like to know the "big picture" on why it made a difference.

I keep going back to the point that most people believe that dacs get their bits perfectly, and the only other input to the dac that could affect SQ is "noise"....so presumably the cable lowers noise.  But wait, schiit says no decrapifiers are needed anymore because the DAC is engineered such that noise does not affect his output. 

So which is true?

 

I think the question you have to ask yourself is this: if the manufacturer says "it isn't needed," and even has measurements to back this up, yet your ears are telling you it improves SQ, what do you do? I am not being sarcastic here. This is where our world views and belief systems get cast in high relief.

 

Some might say: I believe the measurements, I know there are many ways my ears could be deceived, it could be expectation bias, or other biases, so I'll trust the measurements. Toss the decrapifier, even if it's sounding better.

 

Others, like me, would say: trust your ears. If the measurements say it shouldn't matter, then what I'm hearing is either below the threshold of the instrument's range, or they're measuring the wrong thing, or they don't (yet) know how to measure it. Hopefully, eventually, they'll figure it out. Meanwhile, the decrapifier stays, and I go back to enjoying the music.

 

 

[austinpop]

35 minutes ago, lmitche said:

 

And if we had 30 people, or 60 people endoring the approach, is it perauasive then?

 

33 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

No.

 

I think here, in a nutshell, is the divide in CA.

 

There is one group of folks who do not regard any anecdotal findings credible, no matter the sample size. That's OK. That's their prerogative.

 

There are another group of people (count Larry and me in them) who are interested in anecdotal findings. We report ours, and try those reported by others. Do we try everything? Of course not. We use our own filters to decide where to invest our time and money. But it is our time, and our money. As it is for so many others who participate in these discussions. They try things and make their own, considered, buying decisions. They are not helpless naïfs, in need of "saving" from the big, bad anecdotalists! 

 

Both sides can and should coexist, but it's best that we don't invade each other's threads, as I don't think we're going to change each other.

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

That is a deliberate mischaracterization of what you quoted.

 

He asked if 30 or 60 anecdotal testimonials would be "persuasive."

 

They might be credible. They might not be credible.  

 

The problem is that we have no way to distinguish whether or not they are credible, unless we put it to a test that eliminates things like the power of suggestion, or expectation bias.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I apologize if I mischaracterized what you said. It was not my intent.

 

But here's the thing... many of us don't come here to debate and evaluate the credibility of reported findings. We come here to share our experiences, and to garner ideas to try in our own systems. If you and others set a very high bar for yourselves, in terms of what content you consider credible, and perhaps actionable, that's fine and laudable.

 

But why not let others use their own looser criteria?

 

I am enjoying a level of SQ in my system that is light years beyond what it was 2 years ago, and even a year ago. I did it by adopting a series of changes based on posted experiences that would not meet your acceptance criteria. But I don't care, because I made my own choices, took a risk with my own money, and am happy with the results.

 

Why not leave people to make their own decisions?

[austinpop]

Thank you for venting at me. I hope you feel better now.